Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. We have been travelling through the Red River Valley and listening to many people that have been victims of the flood over the last number of months. [interjection] Well, not all of us were in London at the various events. Some of us were in Morris and listening to people from the Red River Valley.

Memories cannot be replaced with the flood. Possessions perhaps can be, but a lot of people just want to rebuild their lives with dignity. Throughout all of the communities we went to, when we were listening to farmers or people in other communities such as Ste. Agathe and others, we consistently heard the anger and disappointment concerning the Premier's comments about people living in a flood plain must take responsibility for the impact of that flood.

On behalf of Shaun Crew, who raised this question from Ste. Agathe, and the many hundreds of other Manitobans that were flood victims unfortunately last April and May, I would like to ask the Premier to apologize to those people and retract his comment, as recommended by the people of Ste. Agathe just a couple of weeks ago.

* (1010)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Opposition does a disservice by attempting to make politics over the issue of people attempting to help their fellow human beings in response to what was an unprecedented disaster, the second-worst flood in recorded history, the worst civil disaster this century in this province.

In response to that, people have done unprecedented things, people in our government during the period of time of the flood event. No resource was spared to assure that we did everything possible to protect every life in the Red River Valley. No resource was spared to do everything possible to protect property, to protect individuals and their properties. We did everything that we could to ensure that in the face of this unprecedented disaster we did what we could to protect as much as possible from harm all of the people and including their property. In response to this unprecedented damage, we have continued to upgrade the program to ensure that what was reasonable to be done was being done.

At the beginning, Madam Speaker, the program under the NDP called for a maximum payment to people for disaster relief funds of $30,000. We increased that to $100,000. The program under the NDP said you could only have one claim per property; we said you could have multiple claims, one for your house, one for your farm, one if you had a business as well on it. You could have up to three, so therefore the limit was raised to $300,000 from $30,000.

We said that the program that the NDP had designed and had built called for a 20 percent deductible. We said that if you engage in a commitment to floodproof and that 20 percent deductible--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Beauchesne is very clear that answers to questions should be brief and relate to the matter raised. The Leader of the Opposition asked very clearly whether the Premier is going to apologize for his comments blaming many of the victims for living on a flood plain. Will you please ask the Premier to answer the question? Is he going to apologize for that comment or not?

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we continue to enhance and upgrade the program to meet the needs of the people of the valley and those needs as they continue to evolve. When people said that the 20 percent deductible was unfair, we said that if they would commit to floodproofing so that in future they would be protected from the flooding, that that 20 percent would be waived. When opposition and the people of the valley said that the program was not generous enough the way it had been designed under the NDP, the way it had been developed under the NDP, that it paid for depreciated values, we enhanced the program so that it provided for new furnaces, new appliances, provided for floor covering, provided for all sorts of things.

That is what we did. We continued to enhance the program in response to the needs of the people.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, what we have is unprecedented smugness from this Premier and callousness in terms of this comment. People who voted for you, people who supported you are absolutely angry at you for blaming them for living in three generations on a flood plain.

You are no Duff Roblin, sir. You are no Duff Roblin in terms of the leadership you have taken, because we all live on a flood plain. We all work as one community. We all work in a co-operative way.

Will this Premier now take the necessary leadership as head of this province and apologize for his unprecedented comments to those flood victims so they can know that the Premier will admit that he was wrong to blame them for living on a flood plain?

* (1015)

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, at no time did I blame anyone for living on a flood plain. I live on a flood plain; the Leader of the Opposition lives on a flood plain. We chose to live behind protective works, protective works that have had hundreds of millions of dollars of public investment. There are protective works in place in eight communities south of Winnipeg in the Red River Valley. People have chosen to live there. My comments have been in response to the assertions by various people that it was unreasonable or unfair to have any deductible whatsoever in the program.

The fact of the matter is that it was seen to be reasonable by the New Democrats. In fact, Harry Harapiak, the brother of the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), brought in the deductible. He argued that it was not anybody's fault. It is a matter of assigning who pays for the damage. People who live on flood plains, including myself, including the Leader of the Opposition, cannot get flood insurance.

So the question becomes then: who pays for all of the consequences of an unprecedented disaster? The answer, of course, has been in the past that there has to be some sharing, a small portion.

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the taxpayers of Manitoba, the government of Manitoba are paying the vast majority of the costs of the damage. That does not mean they are to blame for the disaster. They are not to blame for the disaster; the taxpayers, the government is not to blame for the disaster, nor are the people who live there to blame for the disaster. That is what I have always said. It is only members opposite who have misrepresented my comments.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, is the Premier now saying that all the farmers in the Red River Valley have to move to Tuxedo to be protected like the Premier, that all the people in Ste. Agathe must move to Lindenwoods to get protected behind the protective measures that we have collectively built? Is that what the Premier is saying, and will he not now admit that that is a crazy thing for him to be saying--Perimeteritis, Tuxedo-vision kind of view of the province of Manitoba? Why does he not just apologize, as recommended by Shaun Crew, apologize for his comments on people that have lived in three generations in Ste. Agathe, people that must take responsibility for consciously building on a flood plain when they have lived there for three generations? Why does the Premier not apologize for that statement?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, of course, in his usual way, tries to twist and misrepresent what I have said. I just said that people have eight ring-diked communities in southern Manitoba. He saw them when he went up to fly over that area with me, places like St. Jean Baptiste, places like Emerson, places like Morris, and so on throughout the valley, Rosenort, and so on. In addition to that, there are thousands of homes that were built with flood protection, many of them built eight and 10 feet above the level of the land, many of them built with dikes around them to protect them from all of those things.

Everybody made choices along the way and investments along the way, as did governments, and that is the kind of determination that people have made over generations, including those who have lived there for three generations. Nobody is suggesting that they ought to move. Nobody is suggesting that they do not have a right to make those choices. What we are discussing is whether or not there should be a deductible in the program, and even there every single one of those people can be eligible to have the deductible waived if they provide for floodproofing in the future and commit to floodproofing in the future.

So we have provided every opportunity for them to avoid those costs. We think that is a reasonable thing to do, and we certainly are not blaming anybody for choices that they make, nor are we blaming anybody for the flood, because the flood is not the responsibility of any human being, Madam Speaker.

* (1020)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, with a new question to the Premier. All taxpayers in Manitoba, through the federal-provincial sharing agreement, paid for the building of the Brunkild dike. In terms of its construction, it was built within four days to protect a number of people. The people in the Ste. Agathe area feel that that measure and other measures may have impacted on the flooding in their communities. They also feel that you, the Premier--not the NDP, but the people of Ste. Agathe have called on you as the Premier to retract and apologize for your heartless comments about they had decided to consciously reside in an area that they knew was prone to flooding.

Now I would ask on behalf of the people of Ste. Agathe for you just to stand up and simply apologize, take some leadership in terms of the values of our community of co-operation and apologize for your heartless comments about their responsibility for living in Ste. Agathe.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have already responded to that question in full. I have described how many of us sitting in this Chamber have made conscious decisions as to where we reside, and many thousands throughout the Red River Valley have made conscious decisions about the level at which houses were constructed or the dikes that were constructed around them, all of those things that are part of it. What the argument and debate is about is as to whether or not it is reasonable to have a 20 percent deductibility that was brought in by the Honourable Harry Harapiak, the brother of the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), and at that time he made the argument about people having a joint responsibility for the costs of this when there is no ability to have insurance coverage.

We are paying out the claims to 4,800 people, willingly we are paying them out, and we are providing for an ability to waive the deductible if they provide for long-term protection, participate in the long-term floodproofing that will then ensure that in future neither they nor anybody else who lives on that property would be subject to this kind of damage and this kind of trauma. These people went through unprecedented trauma. That is why we have upgraded the program numerous times throughout the months, well above any level of coverage that was ever provided under the New Democrats when they were in government. We are doing so because we believe it is the right thing to do, and we will continue to do the right thing to ensure that we provide whatever coverage, whatever support is reasonable for these people, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Doer: Why can this Premier not just admit he was wrong to have made his statements last spring and repeat them again this week if he does care about the trauma of flood victims, as he alleges he does? I have heard from hundreds of flood victims that have been traumatized by the flood. They have lost their memories, they have lost their possessions, and the way they have had to access many of the government programs, they feel they have lost their dignity. But more than anything, they are angry and hurt by the comments made by the Premier that they chose to live on a flood plain and must take the responsibility. Why can the Premier today not take the proper leadership, admit he was wrong to make that heartless comment to those people, and just apologize to them?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I cannot remove the trauma, I cannot remove the effects of the flood, much as I would like to. Many of us spent seven days a week, long hours throughout the period of time, because we were dedicated to and committed to doing everything possible to ensure that no life was lost, that we minimized damage to people, to property and every other thing that could be done to ensure that the trauma was as much relieved as it possibly could be.

We have set up unprecedented resources, counselling, supports, opened offices throughout the valley to ensure that people had access to whatever supports government had in place to provide. We have worked with the federal government. We have enriched programs well beyond anything that was ever there, and we will continue to stand beside the people of the valley to ensure that anything reasonable is done to support them in these circumstances.

* (1025)

Mr. Doer: The Premier is correct. He could not remove the water, but he can remove his words. He can remove his words. That is what we are asking him to do today. I have listened to people all across this province, including people that have been protected in the city of Winnipeg, and they are absolutely offended, as people that were protected, that you would then blame those victims in southern Manitoba for the trauma they have gone through and for locating on that flood plain, generation after generation of farmers that have been located on the flood plain who cannot move to Tuxedo, generation and generation of people in Ste. Agathe who have raised their families in those communities and many other communities across the flooded areas.

All I ask the Premier to do is to remove his comments by doing the proper thing and showing leadership today and apologize to those people for his callous and heartless comments of last spring which he repeated, regrettably, again this week.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have not at any time blamed any people for the circumstances of the flood. I have not at any time blamed people for the circumstances of the flood. The member continues to misrepresent what I am saying and continues to do it for his own political purposes. I am not interested in that debate.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, farming plays a very important part in the economy of Manitoba, but farmers cannot move their land within the dikes that are protected from flooding. We raised the issue of farm income and farm losses in May. We visited people in the southern part of the province in October, and we met people who were very frustrated by the red tape they were facing and lack of information on coverage that was provided them. Now we have the hearings, and we see that the farmers are still facing frustration.

When is this Premier (Mr. Filmon) going to stop being so heartless and when is he going to address the concerns of those farmers who were not able to move their land and have suffered because of the water that was forced onto their land because of decisions made by the Premier?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): I presume that the member, without being specific, is referring to the land immediately south of the Z-dike as one of the issues that has been raised recently, because within the Red River Valley as a whole, there are crop insurance opportunities. In fact, Manitoba Department of Agriculture would indicate that all of the valley was seeded except for about 2,500 acres, although we all realize that it was a delayed spring.

But addressing the farmers immediately south of the Z-dike, in fact the Department of Natural Resources has written to the federal government referencing this area as a concern that we have about the specific impacts that occurred on about six sections of land. They have not presently been accepted within the parameters of the federal-provincial and the federal program, where they pay 90 percent of the cost. They still consider them ineligible, but we are advocating on their behalf for further compensation as a result of the action that was taken there.

I will address the control structure perhaps in a subsequent question.

Ms. Wowchuk: In my questions I refer to the people outside the Brunkild dike but also people throughout the Red River Valley in the Morris area who have said that they have had all kinds of red tape and unfairness in the way that they are being compensated. Information is not being given to them and they are having a hard time surviving this winter. When are we going to see some compassion and some heart from this government to see that people are able to feed their families this winter since they have lost their livelihoods in many cases?

* (1030)

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, there are numerous issues across the entire agricultural portion of the Red River Valley, not the least of which is the recovery of the drainage system that needs to occur after you have had enormous sedimentation as a result of a flood that is the highest in about 160 years of known history of the valleys. There have only been two floods that exceeded this magnitude, and they were prior to the valley being populated. The fact is, if there are specific issues about some of the--

An Honourable Member: Aboriginal people were here 6,000 years.

Mr. Cummings: Well, if the Leader of the Opposition would like to discuss the damages that occurred to the aboriginal properties during those years, I suppose we could.

Madam Speaker, the issue of the six sections immediately south of the Brunkild dike, the issue there is that, in closing the Brunkild dike, there was never anticipated a volume of water as far west as occurred during this flood, and there were no control structures on the drainage crossings that went through the Brunkild dike. Those culverts, if we had released them when the water was at its peak or even as it was beginning to go down, engineers assured us that they would roll up like tissue paper and we would have flooded the La Salle valley. There was simply a very significant issue there in releasing that water slowly, and we are advocating on behalf of those farmers to see if there is a willingness for them to become part of further compensation.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, there were a lot of comments there, but the minister is not really listening to what I am asking. I am asking him to consider the fact that there are people that are losing their livelihoods, people like Linda Manson, who is saying she is considering packing up and moving out because she will not be able to make a living off that land for 10 years. Instead of talking about what the federal government is going to do, when is this government going to talk to these people specifically instead of trying to pass it off onto the federal government? There is responsibility from this province to deal with these people.

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, the member for Swan River Valley only picked up on one phrase. We are fully prepared to work with anyone in the valley who has special circumstances that may not fit within the broad range of these programs. I am certainly not hiding behind the skirts of the federal government; I simply said for them to be reimbursed at a different level, it has to come under the 90-10 program. The 90-10 program is a jointly administered program, and they may receive some relief through that program.

As to the other specific within the valley, the Department of Agriculture, the department of emergency response have all combined, along with Rural Development and Natural Resources, to put available in the valley all of our resources. There have been offices and phone lines established throughout the valley. If there are specific concerns that have not been brought to my attention or to one of the individual ministers that are somehow exceptions or outside of the normal programs that have been offered--and the exceptional programs in some cases have been offered--then please bring these to our attention and we will deal with them forthwith.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, one year ago today we saw a day that will be remembered for many years to come in this Legislature as this government broke centuries of parliamentary traditions and every rule in our rules to ram through the sale of MTS, a sale that was never once raised in the election, something they had no mandate to do.

I want to ask the Premier: now that we have a year to see that many of the predictions that we made have come true about rate increases, about the fact that MTS is not even a Manitoba-owned company anymore, will this Premier now admit that the only people that have benefited from the sale of MTS have been his stockbroker friends and that the rest of Manitobans, one year later, are now paying the price for that government's decision?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Ashton: I want to ask, Madam Speaker, if the Premier will deal with the consequences of his decision and his government's decision to sell off MTS.

Will he join the more than 50 band councils and municipal councils that have spoken out against the MTS rate increase that will bring in a 12.75 percent rate of return, a hundred-million-dollar profit, four times what it made as a publicly owned company? Will he at least speak up, take responsibility for the consequences of those rate increases and join the municipal councils in saying no to this ripoff to the ratepayers?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we--

An Honourable Member: Tell the truth this time.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: What I will say in response to the member for Thompson is that exactly what we have said is happening right across Canada, that a rate rebalancing is underway in every telephone--[interjection] Madam Speaker, in every utility in Canada we see that long distance charges are going down and we see that local charges are going up, that this was part of proposals that have been in place for a considerable length of time. The member may know that in Saskatchewan it has been announced just very recently, as we said it would be, that the rates will go up over a two-year period of four and a quarter in the big cities of Regina and Saskatoon, five and a quarter per month in the medium-sized cities and over six and a quarter in the rural areas per month--per month, major increases. Those are exactly the same things that are happening in Saskatchewan, as are happening in every other province of Canada.

As the member may know, particularly in his own community of Thompson, overall bills are less today than they were before because of the impact of the reduced long distance charges, and so average bills, Madam Speaker, continue to be less because long distance rates are going down and all the ratepayers benefit by that.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, a few months ago I talked about the Premier should have a sequel to the movie, honey, I blew up the phone bills. Actually, now: I have rebalanced the phone bill.

I want to ask the Premier if he will tell Manitobans that in Saskatchewan they have had no rate increase since 1993, and now the increase they are seeking under public ownership in Saskatchewan is one-third of what it will be under the privately owned MTS. Why will he not speak out against those rate increases, Madam Speaker?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member continues to bring misinformation to the House.

Mr. Ashton: On a new question, Madam Speaker, since the--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I understand the member for Thompson is prepared to allow me to ask a question.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for EMO. Many thousands of Manitobans were affected quite dramatically as a result of the flood. In fact, there was an appeal mechanism that was put into place for those citizens that felt that the assessments that were given were not in fact accurate or good. The government had chosen to charge a $25 appeal fee.

My question is to the minister responsible. Can he indicate to this House how many people, victims in fact, applied through the appeal and if he can give us an update as to what the current number is still outstanding?

* (1040)

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): I just wish to inform the member that, in reference to the $25 appeal fee, that has been waived, and there will be no fees for anybody wishing to have an appeal before the disaster appeals claims board. As well, anybody that had a house that was unsalvageable, in terms of assessing the market value of that house for determining a settlement, if there could not be agreement on that settlement, then that appeal went to the Land Value Appraisal Commission.

As of today, there is one appeal that has been registered for the 1997 flood. We have some outstanding appeals from the 1996 flood that should be heard, but that is the update as of today.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate in terms of when is the last day for victims to be able to launch any sort of an appeal, or can that be done at any time?

Mr. Pitura: That can be done at any time because the claims continue to stay open until such time as there is agreement between the claimant and the Emergency Management Organization as to the finalization of the claim.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Can the minister indicate what the government is prepared to do for those individual homeowners where, because in a hurry and trying to get their lives back together, there has been an exceptional amount of mould and mildew? In fact, in many houses where there was construction completed, they are having to tear down some of the walls as a result of that. Is the government prepared to take any sort of action in support of these individuals?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Minister of Government Services): Yes, we are. Mould is certainly an issue that we are addressing, and we are monitoring it very closely. We have had the opportunity to speak with our friends in Quebec, in the Saguenay region, as to the practices that they employed with regard to mould. As well, we have been having discussions with our neighbours to the south of us in Grand Forks.

As these issues arise, we have the Department of Environment as well as other officials in government that are prepared to investigate each issue as it arises with regard to mould, and ultimately a decision will be made with respect to whether the mould is a health risk or not.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, on May 2 and May 8, this Premier said that Manitoba ratepayers would get the full benefit of the tax deferral from the pension plan contributions to MTS.

Will the Premier now explain to this House why his government has not intervened before the CRTC to resist MTS's attempt to take a large portion of that benefit for their rate return of 12.75 percent, an obscene rate of return that they are asking for their shareholders, in contradistinction to what this Premier said would be the rights of a return to the ratepayers of Manitoba? Why will he not intervene before the CRTC to secure our rights?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): That matter is currently before the CRTC, and the CRTC will be making their judgment based on the proposals and the interventions that are before them.

Mr. Sale: Why will this Premier not see that his word is kept on behalf of Manitobans? Why will he not be before the CRTC as other provinces have been when their privately owned telephone companies have been making obscene requests on a rate of return? Why will he not keep his word that all of the benefit of the tax ruling will come to the ratepayers of Manitoba and not to the shareholders of MTS? Why will he not keep his word?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat that that matter is before the CRTC, that they are an independent commission and that they will consider all facts when they make their decision.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, the people of Ste. Agathe have been very clear both before and during the commission hearings that they did not know what was coming their way. They also did not know about a massive construction effort that was taking place out of town; they did not know about the breadth of the Red Sea that was forming outside of their community; and they did not know of the intentional blocking of drainage culverts and the intentional cutting of country roads.

Why did this Premier not have the decency to warn these Manitobans before he threw a wall of water at them last spring?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, now there is a very, very far stretch with respect to placing facts on the record.

Every day during the flood event we had all of the officials available to discuss all of the issues with respect to the flood on a daily basis in news conferences here in the building. They were in touch daily on a telephone conference at which they shared all information with the leaders of the local communities in all of the municipalities.

The road cuts that were talked about as being a brand new revelation are talked about here in an article that was in the Winnipeg Free Press on the 2nd of May, and at that time Larry Whitney, who is known to members opposite, who is known to the media, talked about those particular road cuts. The officials who were there said by observation exactly what was happening and where these different measures were taking place. They talked about the flow directions. They talked about the locations. I pointed out those specific road cuts to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) when we were flying over it at that particular time.

I would say to the member for Dauphin that he should get some factual information when he comes here. I would recommend that he read this article that was in the Free Press the day after the Ste. Agathe community flooded, and one of the last people it says who was in town, Jean Champagne, Ste. Agathe postmaster and one of the last people to leave town when the water poured in early Tuesday morning, also put the sole blame on the wind: "Nobody's to blame; everybody did their job," Champagne said. That is the kind of information that was available every day. There are quotes by Larry Whitney about the road cuts, about every one of those things, Madam Speaker, so he should not attempt to come here and say that these measures were taken without anybody knowing.

* (1050)

Mr. Struthers: Is this Premier now still saying that it is totally the fault of the people living in Ste. Agathe that they got their houses flooded, that he has no responsibility in this?

Mr. Filmon: Now that is the kind of statement that does a disservice to all people in public life, Madam Speaker. That deliberate misrepresentation and distortion of that kind of comment is absolutely inexcusable.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the Premier, in our first Question Period, back again as is so unusual for him, is using unparliamentary language. He made reference to the member for Dauphin deliberately misrepresenting something and that is not only unparliamentary, but the Premier should immediately withdraw that.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): It is a good day, Madam Speaker, for us to reflect on the use of language in the Legislature. Certain language gets used from time to time which can provoke other language which then becomes the subject of a point of order. I have said a few times that if each time something unparliamentary was uttered by honourable members opposite, I as government House leader would be on my feet all day. I think honourable members need to look--[interjection] Right.

This is the same honourable member, the honourable member for Dauphin who shouts from his seat "tell the truth," which Your Honour has had to deal with words like that on numerous occasions as a result of questions of privilege and points of order. The point is if you are inclined--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, indeed, the honourable First Minister did use unparliamentary language. The words "deliberately mislead" are definitely on our list of unparliamentary language, and I would ask that the honourable First Minister withdraw those words.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw that.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.